Should “second argument” be “last argument” ?
I think you're right,that it should say "last argument".
Can’t it be proven that any implementation that supports the O(1) requirements on -front,-back,-remove-*,-add-*, should be able to support ideque-reverse in O(1) time trivially?
I might be missing something, but I think the trivial reversal algorithm actually takes O(n) time: while the input deque is non-empty, remove an element from its front and add that element to the front of a new output deque. There are n elements so this takes O(n) time. Are you thinking of something different?
Kevin